-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 781
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Automated DLQ re-drive #688
Comments
I'd call the feature batched retry. This is a common issue, and ServiceBusExplorer provides some help. But it's not as sufficient as a service-provided feature as it involves some work. And when we're talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of messages, it's likely to choke. A potential workaround would be auto-forwarding DLQ-ed messages to some intermediate queue and then turning the auto-forwarding on the DLQ off, and auto-forwarding those messages back to the original queue. This helps with a large number of DLQ-ed messages that need to be reprocessed in bulk creating an infinite loop. |
Thank you for suggesting this feature. However, since we're not considering it in the short-term, we've added it to our backlog. To help us give this the right priority, it would be helpful to see others vote and support this feature, as well as explain their scenarios. |
We have brought this item in our current planning. We don't have a specific date when development will start for this, once we have more information around this, we will update this thread. |
Any update on this really valuable feature? 👍 |
To get all ServiceBus Queue DLQ messages re-driven, I currently need to Receive 600-messages at a time using the Receive-Mode PeekLock mechanism in the Azure Portal.
The DLQs we use in my team sometimes collect millions of messages when one of the downstream services is down.
Doing this by hand is nearly impossible.
My feature-request is to have an option to re-drive DLQ-ed messages internally within the ServiceBus service, without the need to locally consume them first.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: